tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN August 12, 2014 2:30am-4:31am EDT
to change the constitution, follow the law. follow the process. don't sit around and say, jefferson thought it would be great to do it every 20 years, therefore we get to a point where supreme court justices will ignore the constitution says and do what it should say. you want to play that game? there will be a time when the supreme court will be controlled by the other side and they will do it to you. so either we respect what the constitution says, if we want to change it there is a way to do that. ultimately, i think america remains the great defender of wealth creation. look, the 20th century, america invented the airplane, america did not invent the car but it mass-produced the car. america invented the computer. america invented or has certainly mass-produced the cell phone. the whole information revolution of the late 20th century and early 21st century. america played a critical role in creating possibility, and i'm not talking just about chinese people or indians who can, who
do not have to go to the beach to wash their clothes. their lives are transformed. the have the sense of possibility that you have here. they're thinking, how do i get my kid to dartmouth? that is the summit of their aspirations. all i am saying is, let's make it possible for them to do it. let's realize that we have a great formula and let's fight, be community activists, not just to redistribute the pie, but to widen the pies. and widen the possibilities of the world. thank you very much. [applause] >> the national geographic did a study some years ago of 18 to 25-year-old american kids. they asked him to identify countries on a blank world map. 80% could not find iraq. 80% of american young people could not find iraq. 80% could not find israel or palestine.
40% could not find england and 10% could not find united states. that one makes us laugh but the others, not so much. it is hard for americans. that is what american exceptionalism leaves you with. it leaves you with a sense that you we are the center of the universe and everyone should be like that. what is not exceptional is that everyone feels exceptional. the idea just seems to me like a fool's errand. why would we argue that we are the most important and everyone else should what, bow down? the thing about american exceptionalism and the thing about the history that dinesh brushes past is that it is a false construction. completely. for example, the history of the slave owners that founded this country, they really didn't want to have slaves but they did it because it was necessary to found the union. that is an absolute invention.
there is no truth to it. look into the history and understand it. the idea that there are people out there lecturing people on what they should want in other countries -- who? where are those people? the people lecturing on those who want our spending billions of dollars to invade those countries. that is unjust, unfair, and ridiculous. you talk about iraq -- actually, within two years, 80% of iraqis want us out. very typical of invading occupying soldiers everywhere, you can hear almost every week some soldier in iraq saying that we didn't accomplish everything, but when we got here there was nothing here. nothing? in the cradle of civilization? it is an arrogance that drives us the wrong way. it is an arrogance that is not only foolish but deadly. the country as it is is a massive contradiction as i said.
it is rich with beauty and also -- and accomplishment. and it is also vicious with human denial. it is a place that both drains us and replenish us. the tools are everywhere. this country is asking you to dive in. humor and art, protest and spectacle. the quiet intervention. i often think that the bumper sticker that says if you're not pissed off, you're not paying attention. it is a good bumper sticker. it is true. you should be a little pissed off that are the things that are out of balance that can be fixed. it is only part of the equation. the other part is love and generosity. we live in the system that asks us to be greedy and narrow and small, and what we should do is fight to strengthen our imagination so we can be large and inclusive. as i said earlier, the recipe for activism is to see the world as it really is, to dive in, to be astonished, to do something, and then to rethink.
if you repeat that for a lifetime, you will discover for yourself what is great about america. one point about education -- the situation we are in in education is catastrophic in this country. and i appreciate the gentleman's question. it is catastrophic because we have constructed education as we constructed health care and food and housing and a lot of other things. as a market, and nothing more and nothing less. i don't buy that construction. i think education is a human rights. if it is a human right, everyone has access to it. if it is a market, things like downsizing, crushing the voice of teachers, handing it over to tie the entrepreneurs, makes -- to private entrepreneurs makes perfect sense. education, introducing it to a test score number that that is what makes an educated person, we should resist that.
we should resist it with the view that education and democracy if it is based on , anything at all, it is based on the believe in the incalculable value of a human being. we as a community should want it for all of our children. we should demand it, we should insist on it, and we should build a movement for good, high-quality education, make it a reality for all. thanks very much. [applause] >> thank you very much. that concludes the debate for this evening. we ask as you leave to please go look at the tables we have outside. i think both mr. ayers and mr. d'souza will be selling and signing books. thank you for stopping by. thank you. >> veterans health care is one of the key issues congress worked on this year. our program will include
highlights of the hearings and president obama signing the veterans health-care bill last week. here is part of one of the hearings. >> i think the v.a. has the potential to be one of the finest institutions in the world . we have seen certain aspects of the pharmacy cannot be matched, it is one of the best in the world, very efficient. there are many things that are efficient in our system. but we should ask ourselves, when someone came out -- up with the idea of seeing a veteran in 14 days it sounded like a good idea. questioning ise if we made a mistake and somehow overloaded the system, how come evils names disappeared off lists -- people's names disappeared off lists? e hundreds of thousands of veterans electronically did not exist?
retaliation exists because there is a culture. this culture of retaliation, that is the cancer to the veteran administration. most physicians and nurses and the people who work in the hospital are disgusted. morel is extremely low. people, to me all the same -- time and say did that happen here? people care. when i heard some of the testimony from the phoenix v.a. it was gut wrenching. i could not sleep. i believe there is a lot of people within the system that feel the same way. but there exists a cancer within leadership, a few individuals that perpetuate this idea that we should be silent, that we should not stand up and do the right thing and be honest. everyone makes mistakes. but when you make a mistake and you try to conceal it, that is
really the question we should be asking. who are these individuals who would alter data and hide the truth and prevent cap -- patient care? >> our prime time special is tomorrow night at 8 a.m. eastern. in a few moments republican chambliss on national security. -- a formrs the group on central american immigrants. several of events to tell you about tomorrow. the head of the world war i centennial commission will be at the national press club to talk aout legislation from memorial in washington, d.c.. that is at 10 a.m. eastern. the cato institute hosts a discussion on conflicting circuit court rulings. later the pew charitable trusts focuses on unaccompanied
immigrant children on the second anniversary of the administration's deferred program at 2dream p.m. eastern. georgia,mbliss of ranking member of the intelligence committee spoke at the commonwealth of california about national security. this is one hour. [gavel] >> good afternoon and welcome to this meeting of the commonwealth club of california, a place where you are in the know. us online at commonwealthclub.org, on facebook, twitter, and our youtube channel. i am john diaz, editorial page editor of the san francisco chronicle and your moderator for today's program.
pleased to welcome saxby chambliss, the united states republican senator representing the state of georgia. he is here to speak about his view of the overlap between americans fiscal policy and national security. -- how cantions america address domestic or international crises and adapt to emerging threats both here and abroad will me have that i bring $17 trillion debt -- that staggering $17 trillion debt echo he served as the chairman of the house intelligence committee chairman on homeland security and released a detailed report of shortfalls within the intelligence community's performance and technological capabilities immediately following the september 11 terrorist attacks. eight years later, he was elected to the u.s. senate, where he continued his work on national security issues and now serves as the vice chair of the
senate select committee on intelligence along with our california senator diane feinstein. 2011, senators chambliss and mark warner cofounded the bipartisan senate partnership known as the gang of six, which focused on our nations deficit and other issues with lawmakers from both sides of the aisle. senator chambliss's announcement that he will not be seeking a third term in the senate has sparked quite a race for a seat between georgian republicans and democrats with the new york times reporting that control of the senate may hinge on the georgia race. i suspect there may be a question or two on that issue as well. please join me in welcoming senator saxby chambliss to the commonwealth club. [applause] >> john, thank you very much and thank you for coming out today
and letting me have the opportunity to share some thoughts with you. when i do these things similar to this around the country, i usually find out that i learn as much from you as you will learn from me about what is going on in california, and in the world. as john said, i've had the privilege of working with a number of my colleagues in california. principally right now, dianne feinstein, who chairs the select committee on intelligence. i have been the vice chair for the last four years, serving with diane. when i was on the committee for eight years prior to that server and -- serving with her. diane is a good friend and a great leader and someone i've enjoyed working with. i will talk a little bit more about some things we've done together. mentioned, my chairmanship on the subcommittee on terrorism and homeland security in the house , mylligence committee really good friend jane harman from the los angeles area was
the ranking member on that subcommittee. jane and i traveled the world and dodged some bullets together in some very unusual places around the world leading up to 9/11, and following 9/11. i always enjoy working with californians, and i'm particularly pleased to be here today. justught i would start by taking a minute to tell you what is happening in the senate. now that i've done that -- [laughter] -- we will move on to other issues. there is literally not a lot going on in the senate these days. we have had a number of crises that we should have been occasionally, we do find a solution, such as the veterans administration bill that we passed recently. it has already been signed into law by the president, which is a whole other story.
i could take all afternoon talking to you about that. examplet -- but a good of why the senate, or at least how the senate is doing nothing, how we are operating now, took lace right before we left. california is right in the middle, along with all of our , ofr southern border states having to deal with the crisis of particularly these young children, but we know for the most part it's not young children. it's mostly adult. still, a lot of children being driven to the border by the folks we used to run the drug cartels, and dumped off knowing that america is going to accept these individuals. and we are trying to deal with the problem of what we do with them and how we are going to ultimately deal with these young children, particularly those that are dropped off at our borders. they bring all sorts of issues, from disease to mental
disabilities, because they have been so abused by the time they get there. i could go on and on talking about that. we need to deal with that issue. congress has a responsibility to deal with issues like that. and while he had a lot of debate , and on the house side some to pass al activity bill that deals with this issue. and the house actually authorized some money to provide for these young folks, and provide not just food and housing for them, but trying to figure out a way to deal with them to hopefully ultimately integrate them here or send them and to where they come from reunite them with their families, hopefully back in southern and central american countries. but on the senate side, we had a similar bill that came up before us.
as we normally do on a monday are called back into town to vote on a judge. and we vote on judges, or executive nonce that the white house -- nominations that the white house sent out. and we did that last monday, nimby go to cloture, which means a vote to go to the border -- and then we go to cloture, which means a vote to go to the border security bill. there were a lot of republicans, republicans like me, who joined with democrats to vote to proceed to the bill, because it is an issue that we need to a dress head on. -- to address head-on. we need to debate the bill. but the bill as presented to us was not a bill that i could vote for. but i wanted the opportunity to file amendments, debate the bill , then if the amendments pass fine and they don't pass fine, you either vote the bill up or down at the end of the day.
but what the leadership in the senate has done over the last senate -- several weeks and months is we have had this vote to go to the bill, and then instead of giving republicans and democrats amendments to the bill, the leader has his own amendments, which he will do " andwe call "fill the tree he allows note amendments -- no amendments or debates that republicans may want to offer. come thursday, we will vote on include and we don't cloture to vote on it. we will get off that cycle next week. the border security issue is something i do hope we will but yet the opportunity -- we will get the opportunity to address fully come back in september because it's not going away. i have been on the armed services committee in the house for the eight years i was there. and in the armed services committee on the senate side for
all 12 years i've been in the senate. house intelligence committee for two years. i've been on the senate intelligence committee for 12 years, and vice chairman for four years. when you are vice-chairman or chairman, as diane and i are, it is to in a little bit of a different position -- it puts you in a little bit of a different position from an informational standpoint. in that the cia or whatever the intelligence into agents the -- thelligence agency is, particular matters that they are involved getting information on, they share information with diane and me that does not go to other members of the committee if it is a sensitive issue. in other words, diane and i knew about the plans to take down bin seven or eight months before it actually happened. i think it happened on may one and i became vice-chairman in january. the first meeting i had -- leon
panetta called me when i became vice-chairman, on the day, and said, i got to talk to you. that is the kind of information that we get. when i think about the way the world was in 1985 when i went to washington from a small south georgia town, and i think about the difference in the way that world looks today, boy, is it ever different from a national security standpoint. today, we have ongoing conflicts in afghanistan, and obviously now again in iraq. we have gone three situation in libya. we are in the middle of a conflict in syria. ,e have seen uprisings in egypt indonesia, and any other number of countries in north africa and the middle east. and obviously, the latest situation we've had is the ongoing and ever continuing conflict between the palestinians and the israelis. lots of complications around the world.
and let's face it, the united states, even though there are a lot of folks who criticize us -- sometimes justifiably. but whether it is a military conflict, natural disaster, or an economic disaster, the first country that is looked to his the united states of america. and the reason they look to us is, they know we will respond and they know we will respond in a positive way. actually, we are in the middle of each of these conflicts in a little bit different way in each one of them. continuesion in iraq to deteriorate. i was at a meeting at the white house the thursday before we left on friday, we can have to go now. -- a were about 10 of us week and a half ago now. there were about 10 of us, those of us that deal with national security matters.
and we had a sit-down with the president to deal with these issues before we got the august break. and we were there to express ourselves to the president. when he came not -- came my turn to do so, i said, mr. president, here are my thoughts. the two most serious situations right now in my mind facing you from a decision standpoint -- we are still trying to feel our way through syria. i do not have the answer for what we have done in serious, syria, but we do know there are about 170,000 people within syria killed in last months and years. bashar assad is a guy we ought not to lead in -- leave in power. is anw we deal with that issue that the continued -- the president continues to deal with and wrestle with every day. the other related issue is what is going on in iraq today. there is no need to rehash why
we went into iraq. the situation is what it is. there is no reason to rehash in my mind whether we should have left troops there or not. we didn't. withe are having to deal whatever the situation is on the ground today. the president has some very tough decisions to make. but i wanted him to know because of the information i get every day as member of the arms a membercommittee and of the intelligence committee, i get information relative to how bad it is on the ground. and you don't have to be in those closed sessions getting briefed by the cia to go to youtube and see where eight christian men were taken out in front of mosques about three weeks ago and beheaded because they would not renounce their loyalty to christianity by these isil. isild isis or
is actually the correct name, but whatever it is. these are the kind of people that if they have the opportunity, they will come to american soil, just like those individuals pre-9/11 that decided they wanted to come to american soil and inflict death and destruction on america and americans. we do have a vested interest in weq because of the fact that have a number of diplomatic personnel there. are -- we don't want to see the terrace community get legs -- the terrace community get legs.
we knew what was going on. we had briefings the end of last year into this year. iraq nowa gap inside who has been in syria, and he now. up isil he is an offshoot of al qaeda and he's a very dangerous person. and we knew he was organizing a group of folks. what we did not know was that the organized group of militants inside iraq. we did not know that the iraqi military were, and that is basically what they did. the other thing that we as americans have a hard time understanding about that part of -- world is the relationship
i don't know whether hatred is the right word. i hate to use that word, but the cts,ike between se particularly the sunnis and she is -- and shiites. and it was sunni against sony il going against the city of modal. it was sunni against shiite going after tikrit. but then it was sunni against shia going after baghdad. and suddenly we saw the iraqi military stiffened somewhat and do a better job defending themselves. but i told the president that to do something. we cannot sit idly by and just watch that country disintegrate knowing that theory is leaning now toward a breeding ground for terrorists.
f towardis leaning now a breeding ground for terrorists. aich means iraq would become green ground for terrorists. those terrorists would make land again to harm americans. you've got potential airstrikes on the table for discussion. as long as you've got a goal set and you do it right, this is one member of the senate that is going to support you. i have been supportive of the president's action to try to attack these individuals, to slow them down, hopefully take away some of their weaponry and give the iraqi forces the opportunity to defend themselves, and defend the .reedom of their country just as tyler and i were coming in today, we got word that not only has a new prime minister
been appointed, but that prime minister has named a new president, and it is not mr. malik e, which is a good news -- a good move. he needs to move on. an individual who is a shiite andactually work for maliki is the speaker for the current iraqi parliament, he is the individual that has been named the president. i will take that as a positive step. and hopefully we can see a government that can stand together and defend a rocket -- defend democracy. and let's not kid ourselves. iraqi democracy is not what we think of in the united states, but what is best for the iraqi people is what we should want there. and yet, we've got all of these scenarios swirling around the world. and here we are in america dealing with another crisis of our own. my friend, admiral mike mullen,
the chairman of the joint chiefs , has continuously said that the number one national for the unitedst states of america is not al qaeda. it's our debt will stop we are -- it's our debt. about $227y spending trillion a year in interest paid -- 227 million hours a year in on $17t payments trillion of debt. if you let interest rates bump up a little bit, and can you imagine the direction those payments will go? , thee current scale current direction our country is going from economic standpoint, in the year 2020 and that is not very far away, our interest payments will equal the amount of money we spend on defense. and if we don't change things , all of theand 2030
entitlements that we pay for in will exceed the amount of tax revenues that we , so that everything we do from a discretionary standpoint -- i.e., defense, ouring, basically all of social programs, all of the discretionary spending, veterans, all of that money will have to be borrowed. who will pay it back? it's not our generation. it's these young folks, some of whom i see out here today, who will have the responsibility of paying that back. that is not right. long-term plan a to pay that mortgage off. we need to have a plan in place that tells the next generation of americans, look, we inherited a great country. we will do everything in our power to make sure you in here at that same great america. and i will tell you, if we don't
stare this problem down and we don't fix this problem for the next generation, they are going the first -- generation of americans to inherit a country that is not as great a country is the country we inherited. with twoed very hard other republicans and two other democrats to try to address this problem. unfortunately, we got to a point where folks will have to make hard and tough votes. we were prepared to do that, but we simply could not get that idea and concept to the floor, and could not get encouragement from enough other folks, particularly in leadership, that they were willing to bring these hard and tough votes up to the floor of the senate so we could begin to solve this problem. it's not rocket science as to what it's going to take to solve this problem. we are spending too much money in washington. you've got to cut that spending.
we've got to reform entitlement programs. otherwise, we are going broke. they will not be there for the next generation. and thirdly, we need reform a very broken and outdated tax code. if we do it in the right way, we will generate additional revenues. the combination of all three of those will solve our problem long-term. hope by the end of this year that we will have a foundation that we can build upon -- that can be built upon by the next group of the members of the senate and house to address this problem head on. i'm here over the next couple of days speaking at a cyber security conference down in palo alto tomorrow. security, in my opinion, or the issue of cyber, is the next battlefield that america will be fighting on. the russians, the chinese, the
iranians are masters at attacking us from a cyber standpoint. we've got to make sure that we have the capability to respond to those cyberattacks. i will be talking with some very smart folks down in silicon valley in the next couple of days about how we are approaching it from a policymaker standpoint. to need to work hand-in-hand with those folks and other folks around the world in the private actor to solve this problem and to put in place a program that allows the protection of the private sector as well as the program -- public-sector for these kind of cyber things we are seeing every single day. talk to you,o feinstein said, don't talk very long, but take lots of questions. [laughter] i'm going to stop. i look forward to your questions. thank you very much. [applause]
but we do have questions. thank you very much, senator. i and the editorial page editor for the san francisco chronicle. i'm pleased -- pleased to be here with senator saxby chambliss, republican from georgia. you can catch up with us on facebook and twitter and you can see video on our youtube channel, or in this case, we are joined -- pleased to join c-span. let's get to some of these questions. there were a number of questions . you touch on a number of rich topics. a number of questions came in on your observations about iraq, fact asarly about the you indicated that the intelligence was basically there , that you could see what was developing. a number of questions as to why it took president obama so long
to respond and whether you think it could have made a difference if he had intervened earlier. >> well, first of all, the information was -- i remember very well a briefing we had from lieutenant general mike flynn last friday with the defense intelligence agency. that briefing from general flynn took place in either december or january. and never member him -- and i remember him talking about this core leadership of this group. back then, they were isis, and syria.y have spread into they want to not just move in iraq, but in surrounding countries like jordan and others. but ira member talking about these folks becoming more and more radical. they are becoming more and more militant.
we've got our eyes on them. and we are concerned about what action they will take. but what john brennan, the director of the cia could not have riddick did is what i have alluded to, and that is, the reaction of the president got the same information that we got. he wasn't hearing anything different from what we heard. time, when we in thisosul fall and we saw group called isil who wants to callafade or an islamic syria to iraq to jordan, as far as they'll go, is a far -- much militant islamic state than we see anywhere now, it may have
been the time to act. you never know. i'm not saying the president theld have done something day that the attack on mosul took place. but he's got a lot of smart aople around him from national security standpoint. he, obviously, was not being thesed by them to go on offense against this group. to sit back now and say, if we had, we would slowed it down. i do wish he had, as a smarter ago, instead of now, versus months ago when all this started. games i say, we -- blame doesn't get us anywhere. we are where we are. forward, the president said this is not going to be easy. he's right. it's not going to be solved in the short term. he's right.
we're not going to put boots on the ground. there becauseght nobody wants to see american boots on the ground in iraq. i assure you. >> i think the word that that scarese phrase a lot of americans is mission creep. the president indicated over the are looking at a matter of months here. how do we avoid mission creep? what role do you think the senate and in particular is going to play in trying to this?n >> the definition of mission thep is in the mind of beholder. some folks say we're there now, just by going in and carrying out air strikes. i don't believe that. beennk the president has deliberate, some would argue but he haseliberate, been deliberate in justifying in his mind the decision that he made i guess last friday was when the decision was ultimately
the air strikes. but he also had directed that this -- these air strikes be put on the table, that the planning begin. you don't just decide you're going to do that and a couple of later f.a.18's taking off an aircraft carrier. the planning was in place so that when he did make the decision the f.a.-18's could carry out the strikes. where we go from here, what extend we'll go to relative to additional offensive action there, it's all going to be dictated by what happens on the ground. example, that the isil forces are now gathering and children around them. it's a favorite tactic to use as shields.ildren we're committed to not having
collateral damage. that just means innocent people being injured or killed in we carry out. that's going to become harder and harder to do. if these strikes are going to be successful, they'll probably have to be done in a little bit different way and somebody at time hopefully is going to be 100% the iraqi boots ground that carries the fight to the enemy there. how do you make the case to americans that this is in our stop isil?terest to >> it's in our national interests from a couple of very obvious perspectives. number one, we've got people on the ground there. diplomatic corps still in iraq. we spent -- whatever figure i it will be the wrong figure -- but my recollection is about $25 million on an embassy the green zonede
there.have a staff we have american interests in iraq. we have an economic interest. we have american businesses in iraq that certainly we have a to.omatic responsibility in addition to that, we know for a fact that terrorist groups love to have all or some part of iraq to carry out missing for the long ultimatelyn and carry out missions against or american interests in any part of the world that spot butfind a soft ultimately they would love to those actually come to america. we can't let that the happen. happenwed that to unfortunately in afghanistan 9/11.g up to we learned a lesson from that and now we're trying to make out thet we do carry
necessary toare keep those folks from being able from coming toys america. you mentioned the change in leadership in iraq. although maliki is suggesting he quietly. do you think a unified iraq is a probability or something we should be aspiring for? said earlier, a unified government or a democratic form of government in iraq is not look at andns would say, wow, that's kind of a mirror of america. culture.fferent it's a different mindset and it's pure and simple, a people with a long history of conflict, a long history of economic troubles, a history of living in a neighborhood where those type of
and economic difficulties have been a way of life. to see,we would love obviously, is a new leadership regime that puts economic policies in place that people hope inside of that give young people an quality of to earn a living that will give them a quality of life to raise their children in a better atmosphere than where they've been today been for they've last several years and then be shiaso unify sunnis and and kurds together in a way that defendlow them to themselves from a military standpoint. very, very difficult proposition. but it has the potential to be and we've got to be there
in a support role all the way to try to make sure that this new leadership that's here today, we sit that they're able to unite the create at first and new government which they've been charged to do, that will allow that movement towards peace and at the same time allow operate in ato defensive and offensive way to ensure that peace. that a few years after we withdraw from afghanistan we're going to be going through a similar situation there? >> absolutely. it's one of those things that me awake at night because i know what's going on inside of afghanistan from the standpoint of what the taliban is doing. leaving. we're there's still a lot of activity from aof afghanistan offensive standpoint. we all know, unfortunately, and
hearts and prayers go out to the green family, but we had a lastal that was killed friday, highest ranking army official that has been killed since vietnam. so it's still a very dangerous place today. indication to us that when we leave it's going to get more dangerous. of your turn to some work on the intelligence committee. there's been a lot written and discussed in the past few days the report coming out on enhanced interrogation techniques. you've been very critical of the suggesting it was politicized. >> and i'm still of that mind. know, we're 13 years away, now, from 9/11. after 9/11 happened, after we saw two planes hit the twin
towers, a plane hit the pentagon, a plane go down in shanksville, pennsylvania, in of 3,000 americans were killed by an outfit called nobody in america basically had heard of to any great degree. jane harman and i got our staff who were very familiar al qaeda to make a presentation to all members of congress. invited all 435 members of we house to a meeting where had our staff complain -- al qaeda is and what we were now facing as americans from a military standpoint. if key captured some of those individuals, people wanted to make sure that we got the right kind of information from them that wouldn't allow september 11 to happen again. awayurther we've gotten
from that, the more difficult detention,elative to interrogation has become. c.i.a. was charged with a responsibility that was new to them. the detention and interrogation business. they're in the information gathering and intelligence business. they were charged with putting together a program which, in effect, they were a high valueapture target, then we're going to turn these individuals over to you to interrogator -- you're toe them and get what information you can from them and you're going to do something with them. that was before guantanamo was ever created. that's what they did. not the best program in the world from a rendition detention interrogation standpoint, but the c.i.a. and the justiceuse told department, look, here's what we're going to do. give us legal opinions as to can do with these
individuals. they got those opinions. and they operated within the legal parameters that they were told by the department of justice. that we got annk awful lot of information out of these individuals. and in our report, we're going to document some of the information that we obtained from those individuals. a forever argument about whether or not the enhanced interrogation techniques that were used went beyond, and that's an argument that i'm not going to defend the c.i.a. they're very capable of defending themselves. but the fact is that we got a of information that ultimately in all probability because wecan lives thwarted and disrupted potential road.down the >> as you note, it seems there are two elements when we talk
interrogation, or torture, if you will. one is, is it legal and ethical? second, is it effective? on the latter point in terms of effectiveness, you suggest that there is evidence that it has been effective in information.ble how much of that is going to be american people where it can really be convincing? because there is a lot of debate as we're seeing with the senate report. >> well, the senate report itself, that was done 100% by 6600emocratic staff, is pages. excess of $40in million and it's taken place a period of five years. compiling that 6600 pages, there was not one single interview conducted of an individual.
it was all done by reading andments that the c.i.a. orers had completed after during interrogation and what-not. the c.i.a.'s going to have a that and say that if you had asked us about this, here's what we would have told you. we have views that take the position that substantive information was gleaned from those individuals. certain specific instances that will not be redacted. redactions insome there. we can't reveal sources and methods. the 6600 page report will not be released at this time but there's a 500 page summary, a response from the c.i.a. and views that will all be understanding is that about 85% of all of those documents will be released.
about 15% will be marked out with a black line. a pretty good amount of information that's going to come out. diane wants more than that. they're in discussion with the white house on that now. >> i saw in your interview with "face the nation" that it was boardingion that water is not torture and that it is genevaent with the convention. >> that was not my opinion. i never gave my opinion on water boarding. was that thehen white house and the c.i.a. with the department of justice, here are the techniques we're going to use and they were told that under u.n. convention treaties, apparently those types of techniques are within the treaties. but that's not my opinion. that was d.o.j.'s opinion. make of theou argument that some make that that has -- that the use of enhanced interrogation
techniques has put americans at risk when they're captured? >> well, you know, there was a reporter from the "wall street captured by was al qaeda and they cut his head off. >> daniel pearl. we can cite any number of there's beenre terrible treatment given to americans whether they were or not that have been captured. al qaeda doesn't know what the geneva convention is. not know whats the geneva convention is. we train americans, particularly our special forces, individuals, we call siri techniques harshnclude very treatment during their training inpreparation for a point
time for when they may get captured. i -- i would hope that never happens. be, folks, we have to honest, we can't kid ourselves. these are the meanest, nastiest world that we're dealing with. they flew an airplane into the knowing theyenter were going to die, but yet forward togh looked it because that's their mindset and those are the individuals we're dealing with. these are not bank robber out there. killers. -- these are and we need to -- we need to that if -- if they capture americans, whether they're military or not, they're be dealt with in a very pleasant way. >> here is an audience member speaking of the c.i.a., are you concerned that monitored your investigators' computers? >> yes, yes. about that.ncerned
not only am i concerned about it, we know they did it. not right. it's not just a violation of the constitution because it is a violation of separation of is work thathis i -- i say that, the whole staff committee isr the diane and mine both staff -- but our staff working on those computers. c.i.a. had no right to encroach the work that they were doing. i don't care whether our staff thesomething wrong or not, c.i.a. had no business going into our side of the computers i expect director brennan to with thosey individuals who, whether they did or not, i'm going to leave accountability board, but if they worked for them.would have fired
mr. brennan? should he be held accountable? anis the o.i.g. made investigation of our side of the computers and the inspector general made a specific finding that john brennan did not know this had taken place. takene found out it had place, he ordered it stopped immediately and he immediately called chairman feinstein and me and came to the hill and briefed us within a matter of a couple of days. came back and briefed us hadn when he found out what happened. so he kept us fully informed and reason to disagree with the finding of the inspector general. and if john knew it, it would be different. it, icause he didn't know expect him to deal with his but john directly i can tell,far as did not know this was going on. >> let's turn to the issue of
the national security agency and its surveillance, particularly domestic surveillance. senator patrick leahy recently introduced a senate version of a would rein in the n.s.a. to some extent. i saw where you were quoted as veryg it's going to be difficult to get a bill out of capitol hill given that the a differentssed version. what is your view in terms of where the line should be drawn on n.s.a. surveillance? well, if i were concerned at n.s.a. was listening in on a telephone anybody sitting in this room today, i would be totally outraged. get briefed on these programs on a regular been to n.s.a.e any number of times, i've watched what they do. our oversight. that's part of my responsibility of you, andntative
diane's responsibility as a knowsentative of you, to what these programs are and to know what they do and to know n.s.a. is going with programs of this nature and we do -- there is no program in the that isence community more highly scrutinized than metadataall the collection program that n.s.a. has been operating. congress approved what we call the foreign intelligence surveillance act that gives n.s.a., gives c.i.a. folks in the intelligence community certain power and authority to try to bad guys around the world and to gather -- use to gather possible information from them. areion 215 and section 702 that billovisions in
the n.s.a. the authority to collect telephone numbers from individuals around and around the world and to store those. but this is the key. they store them. telephone companies store them today. have ever since we've had telephone companies. simply the n.s.a. storing those numbers and not thoseable to access numbers without a court order. and you would like to think that comfortve people some that n.s.a. is -- is only going look at telephone records of folks who are carrying out activities or not in accord with u.s. law and that are in interests.to u.s. unfortunately when you have a ofelation like came out
mr. snowden, all of that changes. unfortunately, some of the could that mr. snowden happen can't happen and i can't talk to you about them because happen.'t just alexander, the retired director of the n.s.a., has talked in more detail about those things. reason to look at a program like this. there is reason to try to make it more transparent. i think americans ought to know what we're doing but i can just assure you that nobody's is evere record intorized to be looked unless there is a case made to a judge, a federal judge, that ins individual is engaged
terrorist activity or he is engaged with some individuals terroristgaged in activity. therefore, i mean, i have been a supporter of the n.s.a. on the 215 program. i do think we ought to make it transparent. to know how many times it's accessed and you shocked to know that we've accumulated millions and millions of telephone numbers only a very minuscule number of those telephone numbers have from aen looked into content standpoint. you get your telephone bill every month. the day you made a long distance call, the number you time youhe length of talked and what it cost you to make that call. that's what we call meta data. information that telephone companies keep and that n.s.a. has stored.
nobody can look at that information until a judge has an order saying, based upon the information that has a judge,ented to me as i think it's in the national statesy of the united for that number to be modified. we've done that on the mob, for example, for decades. order and yout them.rry out a wiretap on it's the exact same scenario. it's just a different program under.'re operating >> let's turn to the debt and deficit which your comments drew a number of audience questions, including this one. president obama lost me when he appointed the simpson bowles with ideas toup reduce the debt and then ignored its recommendations. there's any hope for something getting done in washington? i gotk warner and
2010her in the summer of and we began talking about this issue regarding the debt, the deficit, and during that period republicans were out campaigning, democrats were out campaigning. this was in the senate. nobody was talking about the yet wed the deficit and knew that this is long range the biggest issue that we're all of whatnd that's kind started us. we also knew that the president appointed this commission that became known as the simpson commission and that we knew that in december of 2010 aey were going to issue report. and we didn't know what it was going to say. ironic aboutreally that is that as mark and i ofked to any number individuals around country,
from the business world, economics,f governmentas well as individuals, individuals in the government who understand and the direction we were going, we came up with some conclusions and the conclusions that i said earlier to happen ifgot we're going to really solve this problem. cutthat is, you got to spending. entitlementsform and you got to figure out a way to get revenues up and we do the taxough reforming code. simpson bowles came up with a that simple almost and the person that asked that question is exactly right. i mean, the president had every opportunity to take some action did was just he pat erskine bowles and al
the back, said, guys, you did a great job, and we're going to put this report on the and we're going to let it gather dust. none of us agreed with that report but i wish the president had just said, i don't agree with byrything in here, but golly, congress, this is a foundation for y'all to begin to that,n and if we had done then i think there's a reasonable chance that, with the pushing it andy providing leadership, that we could have gotten something done. i still think that foundation is there. that's exactly the premise that concluded on and they're now only going to be three members of the gang of six left in the senate but hopefully -- and i know how committed those three guys are -- they're going to carry the work on. we had questions, including this one, on the lack of action generally. and that is, if gridlock continues in the next few years, either, one, the
tea party breaking from the republican and becoming an party of its own, or, two, moderates from democrat republican parties getting together to form a new independent party especially and more americans are becoming independent. right to beve a frustrated with washington. i'm frustrated with washington. leak -- elected in first political office i'd ever run for since i left law school and i was fortunate enough to get elected platform of term limits. thought six terms in the house, two terms in the senate envisionedso i never that 20 years later i'd still be in washington. we haven't done a lot of
things -- we haven't addressed a lot of issues that needed to be yearssed over the last 20 but even when we did, we would make a decision that something done and then it would take two, three or four years to actually get it done. that's a frustration to me. thatt's one of the reasons led me to the decision not to run again. particularly became frustrated over this fiscal issue. and kentdick durbin conrad and mike crapo and tom i spent hours and hours and hours together and our than thatnt more time together looking at this issue of fiscal problems and i say on the stump and i mean it timeally, i spent more with mark warner than i spent with my wife for about a two-year period. but we're concerned about this is.we know what the answer
and when we presented the answer one group of senators morning in july of 2011, there not just general acceptance that this is the direction in there waso, but general agreement that this is the direction in which we ought to go. and then we were frustrated by interests who don't entitlement reform. we were frustrated by outside groups coming in and saying when talk about raising revenues, about raising taxes and we're never going to do that. that's not right. to raise taxes and you're not going to eliminate medicare, social valuable those programs we all depending on. we're just going to make sure they're here for the next generation and if we don't do that, they're simply not going to be here so all of us as the gang of six and
then mike bennett and mike tolionions joined us later make it eight of us. all of us shared that frustration with congress and inaction of congress that members have that people have out there now. ison't think the tea party going to do anything but conservativeupport candidates. listen, i get sideways with them every now and then. but i believe basically in what they believe in. core americanhard values. but, you know, we've had ups and downs in the political world in country for in excess of c-spanrs and if we had or cable tv back jefferson and other,an against each you wouldn't believe the nasty ads they would have run against each other. why do you think, when you talk about these fiscal issues prospect of this
interest that we're paying on the debt of $200 billion plus a and what even a modest rise in interest rates can mean, why you think -- why is that not resonating with the public overwhelmhat would these interest groups that are trying to -- from right and trying too are prevent reforms? >> i think the problem right now is that we're seeing the economy improve a little bit. bit. a little it's a very dad gum little bit. but there is hope out there and think people sense that and we've got so many other things going on. golly, it's hard to believe that it's been a couple of years now we lost an ambassador in benghazi. news for sont page long. then you had the -- the the ukraine. that was front page for several days. in syria, situation
that's been front page. iraqot the situation in that's now front page. this world is just so complex now, that it seems like one crisis after another previousand then the crisis goes to the back burner but this is one crisis that's not going away. and people are going to feel it more and more when they write their check on april 15. and i think people are going to about more and more upset the inaction on the part of congress to address what mike mullin has continually said is the number one issue, and he's a national security standpoint, that it's our debt. so we're going to continue to and hopefully keep it at the profile it needs to be. >> maybe it's amazing that we this next question considering the crises that you domestically and abroad and the frustration at getting something done. for advice would you give
students interested in running office some day? my own example as a pretty good scenario. number one, i graduated from law school and i didn't have the luxury that my son had when he graduated from college. he said, dad, i'd like to take a trip to europe. to work.go wife toved with my --ll town in south gaziantep georgia and we began our life in our community. community.ved in the you naturally get involved in politics. you got good friends that run for public office whether it's city council, school board, congress, whatever. to support those individuals but you just need to average, ordinary american from the standpoint of raising
family, making the commitment to your church or your civic clubs or whatever your interests are, and when it comes time for you to get politics, you'll know it. you'll particularly know when it's time for you to get candidaterom a standpoint. i had a group of individuals who after the re-districting process took place in 1992 and asked me to think about running for congress. as you say, i'd never run for public office before and i came told my wife that i was thinking about running for congress. she thought i was nuts. i remember after i made the decision, i was at a fundraiser and my daughter was there and she was, gosh, in guess, and i i happen to overhear her talking of her friends and her friend said, why in the world dad decide to do this?
thingghter said, the only i can figure is he's going through a mid life crisis and this is his response to it. felt a strong commitment to do something for my country. i was dissatisfied and frustrated just like folks are today and that's why i got involved from the standpoint of for public office and i would just encourage young world to go out into the and work hard, do everything you can to support your family, community, support your churches and get involved politics. get involved in -- whether it's politics andonal if it's meant for you to run for office, you'll know it. unfortunately, with as many questions as we have, we only have time for one more. so i'll make it a softball for you, senator. who's going to be the republican for president in 2016? >> it's not going to be me.
you know, who knows. it's going to be wide open. i've got lots of good friends who certainly got it under now.deration right we've got lots of good governors around the country, lots of good former republican governors around the who would make excellent candidates. i've got one that lives south of me in florida that his family is friend. whether the country would go for another bush, i don't know. but he's an example of the quality of candidates who we've got. john kasich in ohio, scott walker in wisconsin. chris christie in new jersey. i served with rand paul and a folks like john thune who are certainly giving consideration to it. these are all really, really men, all men who are committed to what's best for
america and i think at the end of the day it will be a slugfest comehe right person will out and i look ford -- forward campaigning for him in 2016. senator.you very much, retiring u.s.ss. senator from georgia. thank our audience here and on radio, television and the internet. i'm john diaz and this meeting commonwealth club of california, the place where you are in the know, is adjourned. [captions performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]
the the therapist during interview. he had extensive back pain, profoundsleep, felt guilt, he suffered from low result hem and as a was a risk for suicide. nonetheless, he was just discharged and told to follow up. how in the world you can ask someone who can't remember the questions asked to follow up v.a. is beyond me. brian deteriorated quickly from december 2010 to may 27, 2011 when he took his life. how he wouldtand be angry, depressed, anxious, cope. didn't know how to it took a toll on his relationships. d.o.t. -- the v.a. assessed brian for it was their duty to treat him, but he received nothing. he applied for disability but was unable to wait. >> our prime time special on
tonight health care is at 8:00 eastern. here's some of the highlights for this weekend. friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern, a history tour looking at the civil war. 6:30 eastern, the communicators visit a technology fair on capitol hill. sunday, on w and a, political commentator, author and former presidential candidate, pat buchanan, on c-span 2 friday night at 8:00 eastern, books on hillary clinton, barack obama, and edward snowden. saturday at 10:00 p.m. eastern words, the weekly standards daniel halper. we tour theore than literary sites of kasper, wouldn't. on c-span 3 friday night at the negro league's kansas city monarchs. saturday at 6:00 p.m. eastern on depiction of the slavery in movies. and sunday on reel america at interview with president herbert hoover. let us know what you think about
watching.ms you're call us. or e-mail us. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. on the next "washington journal" don cusack,nclude editor in chief of the hill newspaper. we'll also be joined by carl schmid from the aids institute to discuss federal funding to combat the disease and his group's role inned ahave indicating for those living with h.i.v. aids. "washington journal" is live on 7:00a.m.ery day at eastern. much foryou very attending this meeting. many of you probably have participated in some other gatherings relating to this of the immigration crisis. lots of terms have been used to crisis, the route of
development and violence et cetera. something we have been warning six years, that is, that governments in central taking migration seriously. for those of you who have our meetings on migration and development, we been warning about a need to take this trend of migration because there will be serious implications for people in the short term and examples ofof the those implications. debate is mostly as peter talks, paying attention to crisis, as if that is the main issue. look, theake a closer main issue is not simply of holding facilities and carrying of the number of apprehended children and adults, about theore
beention trend that has going on for the past five to seven years relating to a number individuals, adults and minors, who have been leaving theregion as a byproduct of conflict going on in the region, particularly the continued homicides in central america, the spate of violence that is taking place. so, you know, it is troublesome that while here this is a focus in washington of the surge, in noneis of the central american countries -- and with all due to government officials and diplomats from the region -- there is a legislator calling howpresident to ask them, come they were not aware or if they were aware, they allowed to at least have 10 to 20 minors leaving their countries every
day for the past five years. that was -- of which many government officials were aware. we work directly with different political officials in central migration,ling with immigration and development issues, and they were aware that there were problems but for the part, countries like guatemala, for example, had a dangers ofign of the migrating, a campaign that they invested less than $1 million two years to tell you, you know, just be careful, take water just in case. way there is a trivialization of the problem in the region that amounted to this crisis today. is not about the because you cannot argue basically that you have -- represent apeople crisis as opposed to 30,000 or 10,000 minors.
who defines what constitutes a crisis? think the problem is that there is significant neglect in what isamerica about happening. there are five points i'd like to conclude with before i talk about the results of the survey. thenot going to deal with study itself because you have the report with you but i want main -- six five main issues. first one is that, yes, violence thate common denominator comes across as a byproduct of the migration flow of adults and minors going on and it's more pronounced among adults than exceptions ofe honduras where you see that 70% me -- ofdes -- excuse where kids are coming from is takenall homicides have place. reflects is the presence of crime network, a different source, not just drug
trafficking, narcotic trafficking networks but an underground economy operating at level of extortion, kidnapping, political harassment thatfferent sorts, groups include groupings of five people in a neighborhood to networks of youth gang members in some cases. widespread effect of that is haser epidemic that it prompted basically a situation not just insecurity that is read a situationys but of fear that is quite widespread. is that situation of fear that has pushed people to move out why that's then case. second is that it's an important fact to keep in mind that poverty is not a driver of migration. there are issues development that are causing people moving out. you looked at what did the
work we did basically, we mapped out all of the areas in the migrantsates where come from because we have been collecting data on the flows of money whereand the migrants come from and sent money to that has allowed over past years to map out the entire region of every single point where people are coming able to plot that to where minors come from as violence is taking place using homicides as a proxy, as well as the local human development indicator at the municipal level. we also looked at the school enrollment rates, too. and basically when it comes to human development, there is no correlation in most cases with el salvador but the reason is that central mediocre levelhe of human development, in the of thein terms
indicators. does it mean it's doing well? actually, no. because using the indicators, you have six years of schooling against 14 of the high human development index which is basically the benchmark that you are measured in terms of being the global in economy. so there is a problem of clearlyent that is not reflected in the indicators that are typically used. is not enough of an indicator. there. reality is you cannot live on $300 a month theverage when 2/3 of population actually live on less than $200. the third point is that there is no question about the fact that laborion is connected to market deterioration in the united states. demand for foreign labor and transnational networks well established between the united states and central american countries where you know where labor opportunities exist.
if you are in the washington area, for example, you know that salvadoran community from you getel salvador and information about the migratory flows. disregarded.be who are the people who are migrating? you have people from different range of occupations but they're mostly coming to work in the typical industries -- domestic work, agriculture and the hospitality industry in general. point is basically so if we know that there are problems with insecurity, fear one hand, iton the is a problem of development that impact beyond the basic indicators and that there is a reality of migration labor market demands in the united states, then we need to have an approach ofdevelopment that the pace
opposedabor sector as to other sectors, like capital or agriculture. agricultural modeling in america is obsolete at this point in time and we need to pay attention to an asset building approach that basically deals labor force that is unskilled, informal, uneducated and underpaid and that's reflected in the report. so there are different ways to learned ad we have lot of lessons in development to tackle that. the problem is that central america has not been interested manyvelopment case and for years. and finally it's important to into the migrants solution, into the strategies development. and there are ways to integrate them and we have talked about that previously. so let me tell you a little bit about the research in five so that peter can attest
that latins can do it, too. triangulate -- we have been following this trend for several years because as you work on family remittances, you work with migration and as you work you also learn where people are coming from, where money's sent, the differences in volumes and the motivations for which money's weng sent and five years ago started to notice that there was a flow of children leaving central america. and, you know, for example those elyou who are familiar with pathways -- paro, for example, produced a very important study in 2009 that tell of the experiences of this plight and know, youwood, you don't have to go very far. move called "sin
honduran kid. a the writing was on the wall way before anyone was talking about this and today suddenly there is a crisis. but the research basically looks at the mapping of all the locations where migrants are coming from and we plotted against the certain indicators homicides as a proxy for violence. we did not include extortion. we did not include kidnapping which is happening at every the three countries. we also did a nationwide survey in elsalvador tot month where we tried understand a couple of things. one is anybody in the average hadle knew someone who theated and how, if they, interviewed person, planned to migrate and why, and how did they see were the main problems of the country. at the same time, because of the backlash that
came out saying that immigrants were opportunists looking to exploit some flaw in there were that permits being given to kid who aossed the border so we did survey in the washington area interviewing 215 people to get a what did they see were the issues coming across. so with regards to first part, we definitely find that violence statistical -- in statistical terms, looking at nearly 900 municipalities in the three it's basically positively correlated to the asration of adults as well unaccompanied minors. in honduras, the statistical strongest.p is the when it comes to development, as only inned before, el salvador, development was negatively correlated. is, the lower the level of
development, the highest level of migration was going to take place. country like guatemala, andumstances were different that asks a number of questions differentguatemala is but then there is a strong correlation of migration with adults. migration ofe is adults taking place, it correlates with the migration of minors, for the case of guatemala in particular. in honduras, the most powerful is violence alone. in fact, not even the location come fromgrants necessarily correlate at all times. we reach out to el salvadorans. choose el salvador because there are different circumstances. smi ways it is historically more modern country than honduras but slightly less than guatemala. country that has economic
growth experience in some ways not asthan honduras but good as guatemala. faces country that problems of inequality in to otherterms, similar countries like guatemala but not as inequal as guatemala and honduras. we tried to get a sense of that. it's a country with a dense the transnational level between the united states and el salvador. basically, 60% of people know andone in the united states the last majority of people who migrated left without papers crossing the border. thelso have estimated outflow of adults that have left for the past five years to get a and i can explain how we have done that. foundcond result that we is that 25% of salvadorans say would rather live in --
leave el salvador than stay and crime.mary reason was when we take a look at the of salvadorans who say they will migrate and among crime is the major problem, they say they were leaving for the problem of because overall, they found crime to be a major amongm, but also higher those who wanted to migrate than among those who did not want to migrate. so 25% is a critical mass. may of this year, the central ank of el salvador released report and i don't think they about therefully writing they put on it because they said remittances will follow. to 50% of el salvadorans want to coursehe country and of
lapse,an intentional not but it was a mistake, i guess, coming from a government institution. basically have been there telling you that people want to leave. with the elle -- el salvador survey in central america and at that time it was the number who wanted to leave. it was alarming at it and no one the issue.ion to then we looked at the immigrants here and we tried to make sense, know someone? half of the immigrants knew has come in the past nine months to the united states crossing the border without papers. half also knew that it was an unaccompanied minor. we have also interviewed a case study as context unaccompanied minors as well as immigrants to get a
issues that have to be with economy. but when you ask them why do they think, we didn't volunteer the question of the we left an open-ended question. the answer was insecurity in our countries. 3% say something. clear that from whichever way you want to look at this ssue, the problem comes again knocking to the door with insecure as well as with development and development of insecurity is nothing but the presence of an underground economy operating along the lines of criminal that find the operating costs of working in the criminal profitable one. economies are
competing against the -- not just the informal economy but informal and criminal economies. o, within this context while the approach continues to be seen only as a security one, back to thent to go development issue. i mean when i came project and age a e provided a blueprint for economic growth for central america and regional development in this country, and it was practically ignored. is still -- a the report o wrote 15 years ago was deal., this is the real
to pay attention to labor and increasing skills of investment rce and n the local markets as well as increasing communications. mean, these are very basic cannot be ut they isregarded, especially cannot be disregarded when they ask for central orking for america alone. this without tackling. minutes. with my ten >> thank you. christina. want, well first of all, i to thank the dialogue for having
me here today. it's a pleasure. name is christina garcia. alliance he national of latin america and kphaoupb in ties and an organization which we have 40 to 50 members across the united states as well allies in latin america, specifically in central mexico. so, we were asked to come today to sort just kind of give our iagnostic in how we see the issue from the migrant's and ective on the ground what are we recommending in terms of recommendations. just want to start by kind of giving the face of thattories of the children are coming, who are they. e have one of our members in boston who has sort of been a lot of these families
specifically from honduras, honduras oming from and she's seeing about five families per week just this last couple of few weeks actually. they're reporting they are definitely sort of -- a lot of trauma right ing now. they were just kind of really afraid and not really wanting to in terms of what's happening to them. levels are very low. margarita is a small business and she owns a small warehouse that sells goods. he mentioned she was not fleeing because of poverty. her family was okay. and they meet.aking ends they were receiving threats they were going to kill their 5-year-old son. one day they came to the business and someone left a note -- if they didn't pay them -- their business was times.several
if they didn't get more money from them they were going to kill their son. and there was margarita that's one of the ladies -- the rganization with boston is working with. then there's a story of four whose father had been paying a gang tax for protection village in which they lived. the father was killed when he he just couldn't pay the tax anymore. they call came to the nited states and they were all processed and given ankle bracelets and they have court ates to appear before an immigration judge in january. just to give you sort of like a to what these families are going through and who they are. want to comment on what manuel said. he called this a crisis and the has been recorded and we a -- only crisis decisive moment and
turning point for the worse. this is something that could have been prevented and this is that we saw coming and so this is a pattern that they well over racking as the years. there's not hat, one explanation as to why the children are coming. and very -facetted complex situation. messaging that is predominant has been one of hate kind of harsh -- very harsh positioning from the and unfortunately as well as both parties, one licans and democrats, for one reason and one for the other. we see is that this huge spike -- the children coming to the united states as opposed to what you believe.l have united nations high commissioner therefugees recorded that
435% of asylum applications in mexico, costa belize from individuals from the three countries and this is between to thousand 8 and 2013. right around the time that we see the record number of of coming from the same region. that was another big sort of red could have been doing something about it. sight fear children of return as a number one reason we're very concerned in dealt f how it's being with locally. i wrote a little piece about mexico but i'm not going to go it because i don't want to go over my time of the but exican children are being omitted from this course and in many ways mexico is another ountry that's also sort of plagued by violence specifically borders, the corridor.
there.eave it so i want to get into the why the he what, the why -- recent triggers of why children are fleeing. it too much, but besides violence and highest and homicides we are also the militarization and the in oach that is taken central america as well as on another sort of reason that this is sort of fostering this insecurity working on internal development. broken factor would be a and out dated u.s. immigration was pointed - as out earlier, a lot of these families -- these children have already.here t's -- we were working closely with hartland alliance and they
report that 80% of children a blood relative ere in the united states, so there's a strong migratory we cannot p one that talk about this without acknowledging that. ties re's strong family already here so it's only natural this a child will want mother united with his or father or even an aunt. reforms for ancy immigration system and there hasn't been in the last 20 years. that is sort of exacerbating issue. we see long standing structural causes. triggers immediate instability and history of civil wars that have countries weak, again, with the militarization approach they have taken has
necessarily been in our opinion move forward.o specifically especially if we're ao talking about issues of development and insecurity, we the see sort of united states involvement and approach towards latin america or towards that region terms of ly in providing military support, weapons.g more this is the united states. there is a lot of these weapons during the years and those weapons were ind of scattered out into the people the gangs or shouldn't have them. nother big structural cause is wealth and equality over the last few years. wealth has been concentrated really e rich and squeezing the poor into higher poverty.f
high unemployment as was already mentioned and so just all around ery few opportunities for families to make ends meet. i already noted it. actually mic policies --e not kept up with sort of the whole dynamic and the shift happening, right. we talked about low-skilled orkers and there is a demand for low-skilled workers but we're unwilling to acknowledge to find a way for people sort of come here legally. that's going to continue to propel people not boy choice but to come hey have to into the country legally. thing is that -- most people already know that in obtain a visa from -- eople coming from that part of
mexico or central america usually you have to have -- be able to show substantial income homeownership in order to actually be able to obtain a visa. process in legal migrate.y can they played a role of submission to u.s. policies and really kind playing into sort of our policy.h to foreign the war on drugs is another big one. laid out a lso have supply and demand flow in which united states consume the number of cocaine, for does countries from south of the border supply it. so that's sort of implicit in here and that's another thing talked about. what has been congress's response -- well, i talked about in the tle bit beginning, it's bleak. one end republicans, we
called them bills that had no possibility of passing whatsoever. sort of being is sorry, republican -- i'm congressman cruz and those oices that call to repeal administrative forms of relief as to deport as many as approach.nd iron fist democrats haven't been better.nately any originally the president deal ted $3 billion to with the crisecrises. for of the money was going border enforcement. we don't see that as a solution. there was mention of other sources that could be implemented especially when children have access to asylum, a visa or other
forms of relief. mention of compassionate and compassionate we oach to the children, so see that as very concerning. get quickly to our recommendations. -- okay. i'll be get to our recommendations. i'll get right into it. of -- we see four big areas that are needed critically moment. legal support unfortunately children are now being given due process. they're now being given access to legal counsel and sort of processed and put into facilities and now we're they're kind of being reunited with family embers and given a court date with no legal counsel. their safety and protection first.be shouldn't even been talking about other things without that, thinking about
fami family unity should be a priority. let's find a way that they can stay here. n terms of administrative relief, like i mentioned, there's several things that could be done. there's even tps, temporary protective status. will to move the in those directions. in terms of social services this portion we see that needs to be addressed. as i mentioned in the beginning hildren are coming with trauma from this dangerous journey, having to jump on and off trains the coyotes pass and a pass in girls, young girls coming, whereas before that wasn't the case. girls are going through sexual assault, rape. we think education. -- they're hildren going to be living here at least term, education. translators,
people that speak their native languages and integration. them into ntegrate the overall society. communicationsis in which we've been very active. it littleng to change by little from different areas of the country as well as in america. the we need to sort of give him approach to rian this whole component. onecacy and policy is a big for us. andeed to rolely prioritize start to change the way that we foreign talk about u.s. policy towards latin america. human to prioritize development. local ent in schools and infrastructure and jobs. change the approach to security. unfortunately every since 9/11 we've taken this radical towards security that
s it.itize so we need a system that is more equitable and prioritizes people over free trade and mobility of goods. i'll leave it there. i can kind of talk about what is the ground a little questions.f you have in terms of what they're doing of onally i can also sort answer to that as well as internationally. there.l leave it
i don't want to go over my time. >> thank you very much, christina. rich base for discussion. specific t ask a very mentioned stion you the fact that a large number of the children are joining to tives here or they want parents.atives here, first, who is making the for the migration. in other words, is it their here or it is their parents there. is it their relatives. who is doing it? it is themselves or older kids. sense of any good that? anuel, you're exempt from that question. secondly, people making those, putting down large amounts of money, are they ell-informed about the process
that the children will face once they come into the united states? they realize they're going to be probably reunited with the children? and before they get a hearing to may take, one ry year, two years, three years. well.y know the process fact , you mentioned the that people are well-informed and a lot of this. ho make the decision and it is based on good information? just add that in terms of who is making the decision. lot of times it's the parents themselves. the childrens it's themselves. children's these parents are already here and trying sort of working money to payoff
smuggler. it's a variety of different answers and not one answer. know the process here? parents and the families aren't of well versed ith the protocol and the legalities behind every step of the way. they for the most part may understand that the child is upon arriving to the u.s. living han they are there. if i can get my child across and with bordero end up be apprehended he's probably already in a better here wherehan living they're getting death threats every day. in the not necessarily know, at least what we've seen when we talked to families about once theyng to happen
get here. as opposed to what the media has been floating that they're accepting their kids because of like his sort widespread belief they'll get -- -- ybody's going to get families aren't really aware of happen. oing to >> i think who makes the decision? we're talking about unfortunately doesn't get you there because the family transnational. the decision is taken as family where the uncle, the grandmother, the immigrant here basically decides to move the next step. triggers on is what that next step, the decision point. the decision point is by two factors. one is the frustration that immigration reform didn't happen year. the hat corresponds with
increase, the large increase of people. second one is that people that given the circumstances in which they are because they're aware of what day, there is that you know that a neighbor was killed or omebody was robbed, et cetera and that's another triggering i think there is a third one. up with ave come packages to offer you to bring a group.hild but as far as in the interviews we of them give ne you a sense that you pay a coyote to drop you at the border. deal is to come to the u.s. there is something that says you're going to be dropped because the patrol will take you they'll send you to your
home. lot of people a and in many of the cases they tell me that coyote just told me had to drop the kid at the he was about to -- there is a factor that became a triggering component. are they well-informed? no. you put your trust in the -- okay. we're open to your questions, comments. michael barns? >> president obama is likely to executive order this month with respect to policy.tion